By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 984/2007, titled as Smt. Rajbala v. Dr. Anil Kumar and 4 others, under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants have also prayed to quash the summoning order dated 7.6.2007 passed in the said complaint case by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. It is pertinent to mention that that the opposite party no. 2 Smt. Rajbala has been served sufficiently and Vakalatnama, on her behalf, has been filed by Sri Tumul Nainwal, Advocate. But none has turned up on her behalf to contest this petition. So, this Court has given hearing to the learned Counsel of the applicants only.

3. Having heard the matter in controversy, it appears that Smt. Rajbala was married to Dr. Anil Kumar on 29.1.2007. The married life of the couple went peaceful for just 2

three months only, and thereafter differences cropped up between the couple. It transpires that on 15.5.2007, Dr. Anil Kumar sent a notice through his Advocate to Smt. Rajbala calling upon her to join his company. The allegations, which Smt. Rajbala has made in her reply dated 24.5.2007, to the said notice are that her husband is impotent and unable to consume the marriage, whereas the counter allegation raised by Dr. Anil Kumar in his notice dated 15.5.2007 is that Smt. Rajbala did not submit herself for co-habitation during the period of three months of her stay, as aforementioned. Smt. Rajbala left her husband’s home on 30.4.2007 and came to her parent’s house at Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, and thereafter filed her complaint on 31.5.2007 for the offence of Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. After recording the statement of the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 CrPC and taking on record other necessary evidence, the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima took cognizance of the offence and passed the impugned summoning order on 7.6.2007 against the applicants as well against Dr. Anil Kumar (husband of complainant Smt. Rajbala).

5. Dr. Anil Kumar (husband) is not an applicant in this petition. Only Sri Sultan Singh (father-in-law), Smt. Munni Devi (mother-in-law), Sri Dhiri Singh (fufa) and Sri S.K. Sinha (brother-in-law of Dr. Anil Kumar) have approached this Court by way of this petition.

6. It is also pertinent to mention that after filing the impugned complaint on 31.5.2007, Smt. Rajbala also filed a petition on 4.6.2007, under Section 125 CrPC, before the 3

Family Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, seeking maintenance for herself from her husband.

7. Perusal of the averments stated in the complainant, prima facie shows that Smt. Rajbala, in order to create jurisdiction of courts at Khatima, has alleged that on 23.5.2007, all the accused persons came to her parent’s house at Khatima. No sooner did they arrive there, they began hurling abuses and used filthy language and asked her as to why she did not reach to her in-laws’ house along with rupees two lakhs and a computer also. While they were being consoled by the parents of Smt. Rajbala, the accused persons allegedly began to beat the complainant with kicks and fists and they also strived to strangulate her by pressing her throat.

8. This story itself does not at all inspire confidence. It seems improbable that the husband of a newly wedded bride, just within four months of their marriage, will come along with his old aged parents and other near relatives and commit the offence of such a gravity as narrated herein above. Certainly, the averments made in the complaint are highly exaggerated by Smt. Rajbala with all the possible embellishment, and prima facie not believable, at least against the aforenamed applicants. Hence, the applicants cannot be left to suffer on the basis of such a fickle complaint. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the entire proceedings of the impugned complaint case are liable to be quashed except in respect of Dr. Anil Kumar (husband).

7.6.2007, passed against these applicants are hereby quashed. However, the trial against Dr. Anil Kumar shall proceed as per law. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the body of the judgment shall not in any way prejudice the trail against Dr. Anil Kumar.

10. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the court concerned so that the trial against the accused Dr. Anil Kumar may proceed further.